I don't even know what strongest means. I suppose some people are taking it to mean that the level of competition was very tough and there was a deep field. I don't think this quite works because thats not a measure of greatness but rather consistency. It may mean the top players were equally mediocre and the slam titles were spread around.

What if we ask whether the players of today are superior tennis players? Well, this completely doesn't work because tennis is a whole different game today. The speed of the courts and the advancement of technology makes such a comparison impossible. Maybe todays players are better athletes, but this is also irrelevant because athleticism and quickness go hand in hand with being successful on todays surfaces.

It's imposible to compare tennis eras in terms of an arbitrary term like "greatness." We can easily say when the field is top heavy or deep in achievements, but that's about it in my opinion.

It depends on what aspect of the game we're talking about. In some ways this undoubtedly is the strongest era, (athleticism, physique, movement, consistently hard ballstriking, passing shots from way far back in the court, etc). In others it most definitely isn't, as the racquet technology coupled with how strong everyone are have removed many gamestyles and elements. This has made it easier for the masters of the currently viable trades to dominate.

Every era with its distinct or less distinct dynamics had different strengths and weaknesses. As for entertainment value(, which sport ultimately should be about,) there are many other decades which I rank way higher than the current era. There's hardly any room for contrasts today.

just watch what fed, clay warrior, d-pot, and murray bring to the party in 2012 to better compete with the great serbian slayer.

nole has forced the field`s hand to improve.

I hope you're right actually. Not that I begrudge Nadal or Federer or Djokovic their success with dominant years one after another, but I do hope their is a clash of the titans next year, where the other player begin to deal with Djoko-2.0 and each slam could be won by several contenders at the top.

This is a lie..There is no dispute that this current era is the weakest and most disgraceful in
the history of tennis.

The era of lions was in the 90's.

mediter, i have been missing you

__________________Rafa! Rafa! Rafa!

Epic movies, like brokeback mountain, are seldom found in the industry or worthy for the mainstream viewer. As often as I have watched the clips of this movie, I always find something more to it. For one, the gay stuff doesn't enter the picture for me, only the dimension of the highest love I have ever witnessed in life or on film.

Yes it is definitely the strongest era ever. Just look at Delpo, Soderling, Berdych, Tsonga etc. They seem to be hitting the gym a lot and could all lift a lot of weight. Even in arm-wrestling/cage fighting they would no doubt crush the previous eras.

Djokovic is sort of a light in comparison but in a lower weight-class he would also perform well in the strength department. Nadal used to have pretty decent biceps but recent science has shown it was mostly fat to allow him to run longer and fight back in 5-seters. It's a bit like the hump on a camels back. Murray might play a little weak at times but his legs of thunder makes him strong too.

What drags this era down a bit might be Federers left arm. That arm is not strong but his right arm is very strong so if you average it it's all good.